Why no booster on airplanes?

I know you don't want to use a lap only belt with boosters (or people at all), but why can you not use a nbb on an airplane (apart from it not being approved)? Don't you want to position the lap belt more on the upper thighs even when you only have a lap belt?

I think it makes it more likely for the child to hit the seat in front of them. Being in the lap belt only keeps them further away from the seat in front.

I assume the other reason is that booster seats are not approved to be used with a lapbelt only.

Melanie

I might be wrong about this, but I also thought that to be approved for airline use, the seat needs to pass an inversion test. (Turn it over, it holds the kid in.) I'd imagine a booster wouldn't do that. (Not that a lap belt alone would hold a kid in...although I guess it would be better not to have extra weight pushing on the kid?)

Both answers make sense. Thanks!

basically, crash dynamics and such are just so different... the point of the belt in the airplane is just to keep the person in the seat... and to have it be easy to escape out of after the plane has landed to get out the emergency exits.

now I WISH we could see (because of things like hitting the head on the chair in front of them) that the belts could be similar to those on a graco stroller (those little puzzle pieces for the shoulder harness that make it take time to fasten, but then easy as pie to open) just to restrain the rest of the body better... but that would be hard to make adjustable without a total redesign of airplane seats.... and in this economy, I don't see that happening... but maybe one day we could see something like that... I'm basically imagining a larger version of the cares harness, but with the shoulder straps and lap belt releasing together... so the rider is immediately free to get out quickly.

In training they told us that the only approved seats had to have a hard back.

Airplane seats collapse forward so that people could escape in an emergency evacuation this way, if necessary. Major difference to those in cars. Since a booster has no back, it would not protect a child in forward impact. The seat back would push forward and having a booster in the way could cause even more injury.

Also, the whole reason for the booster is to reposition the shoulder belt, which obviously airplane seats don't have. There are a few that do but they're designed entirely differently and usually only found in FC and Business.

Eclipsepearl said:

Also, the whole reason for the booster is to reposition the shoulder belt

Click to expand...

Actually, no, positioning the lap belt correctly is an extremely important job of a belt positioning booster.

Many belt positioning booster seats do have a rigid back firmly attached to the seat's bottom portion; indeed, many belt positioning boosters seats are FAA approved harnessed car seats, used in a different mode- they are not FAA approved in booster mode, but pretty clearly the reason you were given is not why.

I've always been told it's because of inversion as well.

Qarin said:

Actually, no, positioning the lap belt correctly is an extremely important job of a belt positioning booster.

Many belt positioning booster seats do have a rigid back firmly attached to the seat's bottom portion; indeed, many belt positioning boosters seats are FAA approved harnessed car seats, used in a different mode- they are not FAA approved in booster mode, but pretty clearly the reason you were given is not why.

Click to expand...

My understanding was that you can't use a booster with just a lap belt-in the car. It's meant to reposition the shoulder strap so that it doesn't fall on the child's neck. This isn't an issue on an airplane.

The only seats which are FAA approved are those with internal harnesses. Car seats which have internal harnesses that can later be removed are NOT FAA approved in the "booster mode". Only with the harness. So having a hard back doesn't mean the seat is appropriate for an airplane. There is nothing that holds the child to the hardbacked seat so it doesn't offer any protection-clearly so!

Eclipsepearl said:

My understanding was that you can't use a booster with just a lap belt-in the car. It's meant to reposition the shoulder strap so that it doesn't fall on the child's neck.

Click to expand...

It's meant to do both.

The only seats which are FAA approved are those with internal harnesses. Car seats which have internal harnesses that can later be removed are NOT FAA approved in the "booster mode". Only with the harness. So having a hard back doesn't mean the seat is appropriate for an airplane. There is nothing that holds the child to the hardbacked seat so it doesn't offer any protection-clearly so!

Click to expand...

Yes, they're not approved in booster mode, and yes, the FAA wording refers to a "hard back", and so no, it's not the "hard back" which makes a seat safe in a commercial airliner's seat. A misused combination seat in high-back-booster mode would offer the same protection (if any) from the collapsing airliner seat as it did when it used in harness mode.

Obviously I'm not saying boosters are allowed on airplanes (they're not), I'm saying that the reason you gave, that the hard back offers protection from a collapsing seat while a booster ("since a booster has no back") would not, appears to me to be incorrect, not the least because many boosters have a hard back but are still not approved for use.

I'll repeat;

The seats on airplanes can be pushed forward, so in order to protect a child, a car seat used in one has to have a hard back. Even if a booster has a hard back, it wont help much in an accident because the airplane seat doesn't have a shoulder strap so the child will still be thrown forward. The child has to be attached to the hard back or it doesn't serve much purpose.

Some people do get confused and think that just the hard back means it can be used on a plane. Unfortunately not. We were told though that they can sit in boosters during the cruise portion of the flight, if say, a child wants to see better out a window. We just had to make sure it was put away for take-off and landing.

Hard back+internal harness means it's probably FAA approved (the only one I'm aware of that's not is the Regent which is no longer manufactured). Not sure why it's not. Perhaps Britax just didn't bother since it's a "big kid" seat.

The lap belts don't retract and the seats are so narrow, it doesn't need to be repositioned. When I was in training, we were told that we could put pillows on either side of the child. Lifting the child up higher wont get a better fit. Those lap belts just don't fit small children well.

It also MIGHT (and they didn't mention this in training) be because that seat cushion under you is only attached with velcro. It comes up really easily (good to know if you lose something!) A booster would be yet one more layer between.

What would be nice is if they had redesigned seat cushions which you could lift out the adult one and insert one that molded better to a smaller derriere.

Airplane seats are just much more flimsy than those in a car. They do work though. Those seat belts keep the passengers in the seats but there's no "extra" protection. Passengers are instructed to lean forward in some manner in an accident to lessen the forward impact.

Btw, anyone reading, don't let me scare you. Your seatback will NOT come flying down on top of you. Your body keeps it in place. Yukky accident photos still show the seat backs upright. They can be pushed forward so that you can get out that way, if for some reason, getting to the aisle is a problem.

You will see some shoulder straps showing up in premium cabins but they do not work at all like those in the car. It's a separate belt that you put on after attaching the lap belts and it hooks on. I doubt they will allow booster to be used with them but you never know...

Eclipsepearl said:

I'll repeat;

The seats on airplanes can be pushed forward, so in order to protect a child, a car seat used in one has to have a hard back. Even if a booster has a hard back, it wont help much in an accident because the airplane seat doesn't have a shoulder strap so the child will still be thrown forward. The child has to be attached to the hard back or it doesn't serve much purpose.

Click to expand...

You still aren't making any sense. Either the hard back of the combination seat is sufficient to protect the child from their own seat back, or it isn't. Whether the child is attached to the hard back or not doesn't make a difference in how the high back booster would resist the collapse of the seat.

Some people do get confused and think that just the hard back means it can be used on a plane. Unfortunately not. We were told though that they can sit in boosters during the cruise portion of the flight, if say, a child wants to see better out a window. We just had to make sure it was put away for take-off and landing.

Click to expand...

Yes, they can use a booster any time the seatbelt sign is off, just like they can be completely unbuckled. Basically, when the seatbelt sign is off, you're free to do whatever.

Hard back+internal harness means it's probably FAA approved (the only one I'm aware of that's not is the Regent which is no longer manufactured). Not sure why it's not. Perhaps Britax just didn't bother since it's a "big kid" seat.

Click to expand...

I believe that it's because the Regent is too big to fit in any airplane seat in order to do the inversion testing. I believe the SmartSeat also lacks FAA approval for the same reason.

You will see some shoulder straps showing up in premium cabins but they do not work at all like those in the car. It's a separate belt that you put on after attaching the lap belts and it hooks on. I doubt they will allow booster to be used with them but you never know...

Click to expand...

Theoretically they could, as long as both halves are used. The same rule applies to the (rare) car with separate lap and shoulder belts.

The reason that boosters are not FAA approved is because the airplane seats that are used for inversion testing (to gain FAA approval) have lap-only belts. You can not use a booster with a lap-only belt. The booster would not pass head excursion testing. In my tech class, they showed us a video of lap-only belt without a booster and lap-only belt with a booster. The boosterless was not pretty to watch, but with the booster it was horrifying. Without a booster, the dummy's head went out near its knees. With a booster, the head continued down, actually striking the bottom of the seat the dummy was sitting on.

In case anyone is interested, the Zeus is also not approved. Combi didn't bother testing because they couldn't imagine anyone traveling with something so big bd bulky.

Perhaps part of the reason carseats must have a hard back is because, to date, the only harnessed seats without a hard back (SafeGuard/Safety 1st Go, Ridesafer Travel Vest) require the use of a tether when used with a lap-only belt. There's simply no upper body restraint with a booster seat and it raises the center of gravity of a child, increasing head excursion in a space where there's already no room for head excursion. And since there are no tether anchors in airplanes, there's no way to use anything but a hard backed harnessed carseat.

As a former flight attendant instructor and training supervisor let me chime in about the hard back. This was discussed in training I received at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), which performed the tests.

The FAA requires a hard back, hard bottom, and internal harness (the 3 h's as I used to teach it) in addition to the approval sticker.

Back in the early 90's many boosters had approved for aircraft use on them but they were boosters. They were boosters that had front shields on them and were used with a lap-belt only. The fact that airline seat backs are designed to break forward made these boosters not safe. The child would be squished between the shield and the seatback. It was then that the "hard back" phrase was added to address these seats, which contained approved for airline use on them. Today's boosters require a shoulder harness so can't be used regardless of a hard back. So the pp is correct about the seat back breaking forward but the danger is due to this old style booster.

"A study done by the FAA concluded "As a class of child restraint devices, shield-type booster seats, in combination with factors associated with airplane passenger seats, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than in other child restraint devices and did not prevent a head impact."

If anyone is interested in the full tests and report from CAMI regarding many carseat tests on airplane seats it's here...

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/1998/02/18/98-3954/child-restraint-systems

The break forward seatbacks is why carseats cannot be in rows forward of an exit row. Many emergency procedures require crewmembers to break the seatbacks forward in an emergency row to provide greater access to the exit. If a carseat is there the seatbacks can't be folded over. You also can't put a carseat in the row behind an exit row because many procedures require the exit hatch to be placed in the row behind the exit row.

Ok, that's probably way more than you all want to know but that's the reason.

kbud said:

Ok, that's probably way more than you all want to know but that's the reason.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Thanks for sharing.

Very good info. Thank you :thumbsup:

kbud said:

The break forward seatbacks is why carseats cannot be in rows forward of an exit row. Many emergency procedures require crewmembers to break the seatbacks forward in an emergency row to provide greater access to the exit. If a carseat is there the seatbacks can't be folded over. You also can't put a carseat in the row behind an exit row because many procedures require the exit hatch to be placed in the row behind the exit row.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that info! I've always wondered why, but never knew the reasoning.